Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)
Sau. Aruna Madhavrao Wankhade vs The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati ... on 4 December, 2019 cites

Union Of India vs Harnam Singh on 9 February, 1993

15. Having perused the impugned order dated 27.04.2018, pleadings filed by the Petitioner and after hearing the learned A.G.P. and having perused the copy of judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh (supra), it is seen that the facts of the said case are absolutely identical to the facts of the ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 11:49:25 ::: 16 wp15j.19.odt present case. The respondent Harnam Singh was appointed as Peon on 22.02.1956 and at the time of his entry in service the DoB recorded in his service book was 20.05.1934. Since, Harnam Singh had failed in matriculation examination, against the column of educational qualification "Matric failed" was recorded. On passing matriculation examination subsequently, Harnam Singh was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in Ministry of Home Affairs on 19.04.1957. Thereafter, in the service book, an entry was made showing his educational qualification as "Matric" underneath the earlier entry "Matric failed". Though the DoB of Harnam Singh as recorded in matriculation certificate was 07.04.1938, while amending the entry in service book, the entry relating to DoB was not altered/corrected and thus it continued to be recorded as 20.05.1934.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 448 - L M Sharma - Full Document

State Of M.P. & Ors vs Premlal Shrivas on 19 September, 2011

In the present case, applying the ratio of the judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Premlal Shriwas (cited supra) which follows the ratio laid down in the case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh (cited supra), it is beyond reasonable doubt that the Petitioner in the present case cannot be given any benefit of doubt to seek correction in her DoB after a period of 35 years from the date of entry of her DoB in the service book. It is also required to be mentioned that the Petitioner has not appeared in the present matter on the last few dates. This can be attributable to the fact that the Petitioner may have lost complete interest because, in any event the Petitioner was seeking a window/extension of 11 months from 30.04.2018 upto 30.03.2019 on the basis of her alleged DoB to be corrected as 19.03.1961. That period has also come to an end on 30.03.2019 and therefore all that remains in the present petition would be of academic interest to the Petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 189 - D K Jain - Full Document
1